Wigglesworth:
I am not sure that I undesrtand how Guantanamo is a non-issue and torture is a “no” for you. If they torture at gitmo, then is that OK? Are you against all torture or just water-boarding?

Oil Drilling: We may have not found an alternative to oil and maybe we should have. However, you didn’t say what you feel government’s role in energy/oil should be. Can you please expand?

Global Warming: Recycling is not a bad idea. However, like above, what do you think government’s role should be in fighting global warning – whether it be real or not. Can you please expand?

Obama : maybe after I see his school records and medical records, which have never been released.

Health care : whatever is best for me. Everyone else is not my problem. The current system works well for me, and if I get more because someone else gets less, fine with me.

Oil Drilling : sure! When something cheaper comes along, we can do that.

torture : Let’s see, 3 guys who between them killed over 3000 Americans, and the ‘torture’ was done 183 times on one of them. Must not be too bad if he survived 183 sessions. I’d have put his nuts in a drill press, then his eyes, I’d get Iraqi on his ass.

Hmm. I’m being questioned. At least so far the techniques being used don’t amount to torture! :)

Re: Guantanamo being a “no opinion.”

What I meant by that is that we had the base at Guantanamo a long time before Bush and the alleged “need” for torture to keep America “safe.” We should be following our Constitution and obeying the civilized mandate of the Geneva Convention. It also means that we don’t torture. All of that is what I meant when I said “values.”

It’s not like Guantanamo decides rather or not we torture. It’s just a place.

I know that we live in the “Jack Bauer” era. We all have feelings that we’d do whatever would be required to save innocent lives, be it waterboarding or drill presses or Jack Bauer type things like shooting suspects in the leg or using a hacksaw to take their head off. (24 reference.)

One argument against torture is that there is no guarantee it is any more effective than more humane interrogation techniques. Another is that it isn’t moral. Back to values again.

The Constitution applies to Americans, not to non-Americans. What I mean is, it is the Constitution for the United States of America, not for for any collective that hate us (unless the collective is comprised of Americans). What article of the Constitution discusses treatment of enemy combatants. Please expound on that as your time permits.

Regarding the Geneva Convention, it is written for the handling of war prisoners in a war between nations, Al-Quieda and the Taliban have never signed the document because it does not apply to them. How do we follow the Geneva Convention when there is no guidance within for us to follow? I would appreciate your thoughts.

My thoughts? You’re going to claim a loophole means we can do whatever we want? The Constitution and our agreement to abide by the Geneva Convention are two examples of our morals and values. I don’t see why we’d ditch our values over loopholes like that.

My understanding about the Geneva Convention is that is prohibits torture and grants certain standards of treatment. I don’t see how the fact that a certain person or group didn’t agree to abide by the same agreement relieves us of our moral responsibility to still follow those standards.

Yes, I can understand the difference between a criminal, prisoner of war, and enemy combatant. What I’m saying is that torture is morally wrong, even when the status of the opponent changes. Morality is a constant. In other words, I don’t care who we capture or have in custody, they should have the same basic rights and standards of treatment. That means no torture. It also means that you can’t be held for years with no charges and without your family knowing where you are. Stuff like that. Even enemy combatants.

Do you mean we are obligated to follow the Geneva Convention even though our enemy does not?

What “loophole” are you referring to?

Lastly, where do you draw the line regarding the Constitution? Should we apply it in an international setting? Or just locally? What if a pregnant Iraqi women gives birth while on a US base in Iraq, is her child an American under the fourteenth amendment?

I don’t believe the Geneva Convention defines torture. I believe that water boarding terrorists did save American lives.

There is a practical side to all morality. Military prisoners were treated sometimes better than they would ordinarily be, even by the Nazis in WW2. This was done because of concern for German military POWs held by the allies. Japan did not care how it’s captured military personel were treated by the allies, so it was free to starve and torture it’s allied prisoners.

We already know that any Americans captured by terrorists will be severely mistreated and murdered, no matter how well we treat their people. There is no reciprical benefit to not water board these clowns.

The benefit of water boarding them is measured in saved American lives. We cannot know that measurement, thanks to the selective way the Obama administration is releasing facts.

The “loophole” of saying, “We treat people with these standards. Except you, of course, since you are an enemy combatant. We won’t treat you the same as a U.S. citizen, for example, and certainly not like a prisoner of war.” Justification is such an amazing human ability.

I think Wiggles said, “Oil Drilling: I feel the last 60 years or so the U.S. has squandered an opportunity to develop an alternative to oil. We coasted on the fossil fuels and now we’re paying for it.”

This is one of those things which sound really cute but will not withstand critical analysis.

The fundamental premise is that nobody has exerted any effort in researching an oil alternative or ersatz petroleum. This is absolute fallacy.

Oil is called “black gold” because of its value in an energy driven economy. Think of the economic reward to anyone who could invent an affordable substitute. Do you think you could get rich if you invented a means to drive a car on water? There has been remarkable free market incentive to find a practical alternative. But for 60 years or so, no one has been able to cash in.

If that incentive were not adequate, consider the incentive driving the Germans and the Japanese toward the end of World War II. Their scientists explored everywhere their creative minds could take them to develop any alternative. They failed and not for lack of incentive.

Which is not to say that there haven’t been attempts. Anybody recall the effort in the late 1980s to bring the steam engine into the 20th century? After investing a fortune, the effort was abandoned.

The difficulty is that technological breakthroughs are not generated upon demand. Modern communications are the result of the invention of the transistor but the transistor wasn’t invented to create modern communications.

There is no doubt that a practical substitute for fossil fuels is necessary but in its absence it is criminal not to use what we have to its best advantage.

Though I disagree with you in your context, you have stated a universal truth when you said,

“Justification is such an amazing human ability.”

Benjamin Franklin expressed it this way,

“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”

You also said, “The “loophole” of saying, “We treat people with these standards. Except you, of course, since you are an enemy combatant. We won’t treat you the same as a U.S. citizen, for example, and certainly not like a prisoner of war.””

I do not run away from giving you an answer. We all make exceptions, loopholes as you call them, all of the time. I believe that killing is immoral, but if someone is threatening my family or me with death, if I have the chance, I will kill them first.

I think I can give you even better examples of moral context. In World War II, America, Great Britain, and Russia were locked in a fight to the death with the Axis. The war atrocities of Germany and Japan are well known. Stalin’s acts are well known. The US and Britain also were quite prepared to do what was necessary to win. To win meant the war was over and their people stopped dying .

When the US bombed Hiroshima they killed 140,000. At Nagasaki they killed 80,000.

The British in July 1943 fire bombed the German city of Hamburg, Operation Gomorrah. 50,000 Germans, primarily civilians were killed.

My point in all of this is that saving the lives of American citizens trumps any other morality. People that are crazy enough to fly planes in to buildings or plant bombs to kill civilians do not deserve the protections of the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. I no longer have a President who knows that.

The consternation about Gitmo derives from the faith a lot of people have that the only war confronting us was Bush’s doing. Their act of faith is that the attack upon the towers, and all the other attacks, are merely crimes and suitable to treatment like any other crime.

What else can they have in mind when they speak about tribunals and courts and finding enemy combatants guilty of something?

If the premise is accepted that we are confronted with a war, not one prosecuted by a nation as has been commmon in modern history, but rather a war prosecuted by a religion, which is a throwback of a thousand years, then Gitmo makes perfect sense.

During World War II we captured enemy combatants and imprisoned them – Italians in Washington, Germans in Arizona. We kept them in prison until hostilities were ended at which time we repatriated them.

In the current war, hostilities have not ended. So what do you do with an enemy combatant? Send him back to the other side so he can try again? You keep him in Gitmo until hostilities are over.

As to the Geneva Convention, that applies to soldiers of signatory nations captured in uniform. It simply has no relevance to the Gitmo situation. If the Islamo-fascists would like the benefit of the Convention, they need to sign on and follow it themselves.

Wiggles, the Geneva convention is a contract among signatory nations. The signatory parties to a contract have specific mutually agreed upon rights in exchange for some mutually agreed upon consideration by the other party (or parties) to the contract.

If I sign a contract with you, saying that I will paint your house for $500, am I then obligated to paint everybody’s house, whether they pay me $500 or not? Are you then obligated to pay everybody $500, whether they paint your house or not? The contract only applies to the signatories to the contract, each of whom has offered up something in consideration for some benefit they get in return.

In the case of the Geneva Convention, each of the signatories has promised to abide by certain mutually agreed upon rules when dealing with prisoners of war from other signatory nations. In consideration of that, the other signatory nations have agreed to abide by the same rules when dealing with their prisoners of war. If every signatory nation was obliged to apply those rules to all prisoners of war, without any guarantee of like consideration for their own prisoners, then no nation would have any incentive to become a signatory. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention.

If the enemy wants to be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention, they must become a signatory and agree to the same terms as all the other signatories. Then they would receive the same protections.

I do not run away from giving you an answer. We all make exceptions, loopholes as you call them, all of the time. I believe that killing is immoral, but if someone is threatening my family or me with death, if I have the chance, I will kill them first.

Yes, killing is killing. However, the intent of the kill is another story and another subject. I believe that one could argue that killing could be moral or immoral case.

…which is exactly why the USA shouldn’t have violated its own laws (as well as International Law) by torturing captives held in our custody!

“Al-Quieda and the Taliban have never signed the document because it does not apply to them.”

Complete & utter nonsense…trying reading the documents that you claim to speak of before you offer such drivel…

“My understanding about the Geneva Convention is that is prohibits torture and grants certain standards of treatment. I don’t see how the fact that a certain person or group didn’t agree to abide by the same agreement relieves us of our moral responsibility to still follow those standards.”

Exactly!

“Do you mean we are obligated to follow the Geneva Convention even though our enemy does not?”

OF COURSE we are!!

“What if a pregnant Iraqi women gives birth while on a US base in Iraq, is her child an American under the fourteenth amendment?”

Is the U.S. base in Iraq American soil?? I think not…

“Do you think you could get rich if you invented a means to drive a car on water?”

Not if the car industry bought the plans & never produced it. BTW, I don’t think that you can run a car on water, but nice try at a strawman argument anyways…lol…

“Their scientists explored everywhere their creative minds could take them to develop any alternative. They failed and not for lack of incentive.”

“If the premise is accepted that we are confronted with a war, not one prosecuted by a nation as has been commmon in modern history, but rather a war prosecuted by a religion, which is a throwback of a thousand years, then Gitmo makes perfect sense.”

We are NOT at “war with Islam” you moron!

“You keep him in Gitmo until hostilities are over”

..and you do NOT torture them!

“As to the Geneva Convention, that applies to soldiers of signatory nations captured in uniform.”

Wrong again, but what else is new eh??

“If the enemy wants to be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention, they must become a signatory and agree to the same terms as all the other signatories.”

Nonsense…torture has been and continues to be against both U.S. AND Interntional Law, period end of story.

“In the event of an international conflict between one of the High Contracting Parties and a Power which is not bound by the present Convention, the Contracting Party shall apply the provisions thereof. This obligation shall stand unless, after a reasonable lapse of time, the Power not bound by the present Convention states its refusal to apply it, or in fact fails to apply it (3).”

The Powers which are a party to the Convention shall invite the Power which is not a party to it to accept the terms of the said Convention; as from the latter Power’s acceptance of the Convention, all Powers concerned shall be bound by it.

To get off the subject of ” so called torture ” for a moment. President Obama promised to close Guantanamo. But Democrats won’t let him do it. We won’t mention Republicans because there are not enough in Congress to matter. What ever happens, Democrats have absolute power.

Lets take a poll of the posters on this board. Which Democrat do you agree with. Senator Reid says the terrorists won’t come to American soil. Senator Feinstein wants to bring them here. Do you say hooray for Harry, or do you go with Diane? I have to side with Harry on this one.

I side with Diane. We need to bring them here, announce which prisons they are in, then blame the democrats for the inevitable Al-Q ‘rescue’ attempt. They have a pattern of bombing prisons to get their people out…
Then we win in 2010.

Wiggles, that’s all well and good, but what do your values have to do with the Geneva Convention?

What I described is not a loophole. It’s fundamental to the nature of a contract. Whatever matters a contract may address, a contract only applies to its signatories. The Geneva Convention is a contract. You may argue that “torture” of any kind, under any circumstances, is against your values, but it is NOT a violation of the Geneva Convention.

While the United States is bound by the Geneva Convention, when dealing with other signatories, the United States is not bound by your values.

I would expect that killing is also a violation of your values but, if you were a combatant in war, or if someone threatened the lives of your loved ones, I expect you would find that there are circumstances under which even your values have exceptions.

…which has been signed by just about every, single nation on the globe. The terrorists that we are currently fighting are also citizens of many of those countries BTW. Also, the vast majority of the world’s countries have signed onto the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which has ZERO exceptions to it, period end of story.

On May 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm Alan Scott said:

Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that water boarding is torture? Inhuman or degrading could apply to anything one does to a prisoner. The act of imprisonment is certainly degrading one’s freedom. Being called a terrorist and sharing a cell with terrorists would be inhuman to me.

I’m sure Obama’s new Supreme court nominee will make it all clear to us. She is good at ignoring real laws and making up new ones. So why does this woman hate firemen who score well on tests?

I am waiting to see how WW and MG excuse this can of worms. A judge is like a soccer referee, she is not supposed to care who wins. She is supposed to apply the rules impartially. She is not supposed to make policy. She is supposed to be color blind.

The only problem with your point is people are not used to the rules applying to everyone equally. Take basketball or example, a charging foul is a bit different in th playoffs, and even more so if the “charger” is a superstar. I can’t speak of soccer referees as I have little appetite for soccer. Baseball is even worse, although the “strike zone” hasn’t officially moved in years, it is quite apparent that hitters who like the ball “up” have adifferent strike zone than hitters who like the ball outside, or down.

With so many deviations in the application of the sporting event rules, and the general “I’m not responsible for me” mentality of so many (Liberal) Ameicans today, I am not to surprised that a hack like Sotomayor was selected by BHO.

The only reason I used the soccer analogy is because I coached youth soccer and I did a little refereeing. I also have watched my share of basketball and baseball. That players have to adjust their game to the officiating or lawyers adjust their game to the judge is not a problem for me. When you have to overcome a biased official or judge secretly using her position to favor one side, that is wrong. Liberals use the code word empathy to mean bias.

This judge will skate by on her racism, she will skate by on her abortion stand. She has a little problem with the second amendment and how it applies to states.

I think BHO’s Kangaroo Judge has more than a little problem with the second amendment…
“In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml)
I find it hard to believe that a Judge could make it as far up the ladder as she has and have no concept of the “incorporation doctrine”…I wonder if she has ever the opinions of the SCOTUS regarding the application of the 14th amendment?

Note to the Right-wing fringe (from your own link):
“In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she’s been selected to succeed — retiring justice David Souter — not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence.”

“I find it hard to believe that a Judge could make it as far up the ladder as she has and have no concept of the ‘incorporation doctrine’…I wonder if she has ever the opinions of the SCOTUS regarding the application of the 14th amendment?”

Obviously YOU haven’t read them “DJ”, since this provision has been incorporated against the states ONLY within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Also, since the modern 14th Amendment analysis for incorporation was adopted, the U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER heard a case for incorporation of this provision against the states. However, 3 cases that predate the Supreme Court’s modern incorporation criteria have held the contrary.

Specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment & the incorporation doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court in the very recent Heller case said:

“With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

Oooppppsss…once again “DJ”…you simply don’t know what the heck you are talking about…but what else is new eh??

Using your source, her opinion is from 2004? I hope someone during the confirmation hearings asks her if she would change her opinion, in light of the Supreme Court ruling June 26, 2008 knocking down Washington DC’s hand gun ban. I believe they affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one concerning militias.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Judge Sotomayor sought to make a distinction between the federal government trampling on an individual right and a state or municipality trampling on it. You seem to have a better grasp than I have on the details.

“Note to the Right-wing fringe (from your own link):
“In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she’s been selected to succeed — retiring justice David Souter — not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence.””

That is a big IF. Also Justice Souter is not exactly popular with the groups who supported his rise to the bench. He was more of a pleasant surprise to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry who tried to keep him off of the Supreme Court.

A further note, if you care. Senator Barak Hussein Obama voted against the two Bush nominees when the opportunity came his way. No problem, that was his choice, but he also supported trying to filibuster them. Now if Republicans get the chance, I believe they should filibuster Sotomayor just on principle to return the favor. Or just for SPITE. What say you?

what we need to do is tear down our gov and rebuild it the way it was ment to be the time to rise up and take control is now im tired of being knocked down by big brother everytime i think im getting ahead i grt knocked down we need to stop feeding other countries and take care of our people and homeland security is a joke its only another way to tax us even more than we already are we need to rise up and go to WAR with the government be it violent or peaceful its up to them either way we need to take over and get out from under the boot heel

I’m in! I just got a letter saying they are going to levy my wages…. I’m unemployed. Both of my businesses collapsed and I’m loosing my home. Sorry your majesty but this peasant doesn’t have anything left for you to take.